Monday, October 22, 2012

Stupid American Atheists

American Atheists have decided that it's in their best interests to take sides in the Presidential election. They produced a billboard and mounted it on a truck to drive around Boca Raton, Florida, the site of this evening's third presidential debate [American Atheists Demand Answers on Romney's Religious Loyalty].

This is not only an attack on religion—as opposed to an attack on the existence of god(s)—but it's an attack on a particular religion that just happens to be the religion of one of the candidates. There's no balanced attack on the religion of the other candidate even though his religion is just as bad.

This is really stupid and American Atheists should be ashamed of themselves. It's the sort of thing that rightly fuels the accommodationist objections to the New Atheists.

19 comments
:

Why should religions, as opposed to the existence of god, not be criticized? Why should a particular religion, notably one that is the relatively recent work of a known con man, be exempt from questioning? Why should we not care that a man who may become President believes in not just patently foolish things, but is associated with an organization with clearly bigoted positions on important issues? Yes, Obama's religion is also ridiculous, but it has the advantage of being ancient, which Mormonism does not. It also has the advantage of being very nebulous, with lots of room for metaphorizing, while the Book of Mormon is meant to be read literally, and is held by Mormons to be not just an accurate history of the pre-Columbian people of the Americas, but the most correct book ever written.

If Mitt Romney believed in alien abductions, and that those abductions made white people and straight people better than others, we'd call him out for it, even if Obama believed in extraterrestrial life that just had never visited Earth. And it would be utterly devastating to his political career, because it's utter nonsense that we would never countenance in a President. Why are his provably false religious beliefs any less open to scrutiny?

If Mitt Romney believes that gays and blacks are inferior Americans then he should be criticized. It's not especially relevant for an atheist organization to make that case since any reasonable person could do it.

But he's not being criticized for those things. He's being criticized because he happens to belong to a particular religion. It's the fallacy of guilt by association. I have no idea what Romney personally believes, do you?

Why should we not care that a man who may become President believes in not just patently foolish things, but is associated with an organization with clearly bigoted positions on important issues?

You should care that your current President, Barack Obama, probably believes in patently foolish things and is associated with an organization that has lots of bigoted positions. The fact that after 2000 years people still haven't recognized the foolishness in his organization is not a recommendation.

Is American Atheists a registered charity? If so, won't they get in trouble for this ad?

Of course not Larry. No one does because Mitt keeps flip-flopping so many times it's not possible to keep up with his lies.

Also, Larry, Mitt doesn't just "happen" to belong to the Mormon religion. He chooses too, every day. And touts it as something positive. So it's entirely relevant to point out that, no, it's not entirely positive. In fact, much of it is specifically negative.

Would you have felt better if the other side of the billboard took a shot at Christianity or religion in general so that it was more "balanced?"

And if "any reasonable person" could make the case, why is it that nearly half the American voting population will not make that case at all? Are they all unreasonable? (Frankly it would be pretty easy to argue "yes" to that.)

Yes, Obama believes all kinds of nonsense with his Christianity, and he should be criticized for it as well.

Also, why are you asking if American Atheists is a "registered charity?" You could just look it up. Not every organization with a ".org" is a CHARITY. It just means it's a non-profit, which is not the same thing as a charity.

Whether charity or non-profit, don't see why they could get in trouble for display. They are not legally guilty of political advocacy. They criticized a religion, but neither endorsed nor criticized a candidate. If the message was about christianity one could hardly accuse them of being anti-Obama. Nor, despite the anti-mormon message could one accuse them of being anti-Harry Reid or any other Mormon who is in the news these days.

All of the religions are equally "nutty." Each espouses completely indefensible twaddle and passes it off as pure gold. We are just so used to the nuttiness of the older religions that most have become desensitized to it and can't even see it for just how nutty it is.

What about a woman being made from a man's rib, eating an apple as suggested to her by a talking snake in order to gain knowledge, which then caused said man and woman to be tossed from paradise, is not utterly bats#!t crazy?

Long ago? Mitt would have grown to adulthood in a church that preached institutional racism. The LDS changed their position to comply with civil rights legislation (in my understanding). It is easy for an organization to reverse its position, I cannot believe that it is as easy for an individual to do so.

Does this entail that Romney and others of his generation are automatically racist?

Of course not.

But it does mean that their were some causal forces presence that would increase the chances of him being so, or at least having been so.

I dunno, I'm one of them durned accommodationists, and I would *rather* have the Gnus giving criticism proportionally and giving it to those who deserve it. The Mormon Church deserves flack for its history and its anti-gay policy. I forget what church Obama attends, but it's some liberal church I think with a long history of including African Americans. It would be pretty absurd to take the above ad, and add "oh, Obama's religion is evil too, because they believe in God" or whatever.

IMHO much of the problem with the Gnus is things like the following:

* lumping moderate and liberal religions with the fundamentalists

* insufficient distinction between practical, harming-people-on-the-ground stuff like racism, violence, etc. -- which deserves vitriol, harsh ads, meanness in response, etc. -- and basically academic and philosophical issues like the existence of God, or accomodationism. All too often, the latter things attract levels of vitriol that should be directed at the former

* unsophisticated understanding of tolerance and secularism in the liberal democratic tradition. e.g., the regular calls/wishful thinking about how religious upbringing should be classified as child abuse or thought of as criminal

I like Jefferson's philosophy:

=============The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. =============

I disagree. American Atheists (or indeed any non-Mormon) is correct to attack Romney's Mormon religion in this campaign. Romney makes a big deal of his religion, going so far as to claim in two different debates with Obama that all US citizens are "children of the same god", and he is (or was) a bishop. To the extent you can believe anything he says, you can believe he would not work contrary to his religion. This is hardly guilt by association. It's a belief system Romney voluntarily associates with and he is regarded as a leader.

Compare this to Obama, who to my knowledge has only ever been a lay member of his church. Obama has demonstrated and stated his willingness to work against the aims of his religion, as president. Obama's religion is less important. And if we're being intellectually honest, Obama's religion is far less crazy. The miraculous events of Obama's religion happened millennia ago, not within US history.

If we're being "intellectually honest," Obama's religion is every bit as crazy as Mormonism. There were no "miraculous events" that occured. It's all made up nonsense. And what does *when* such supposed "miracles" occurred have to do with how crazy they are? Does "old" crazy somehow lose its craziness? That's not an "intellectual" position I'd want to have to defend.

I agree too. i think a lot of atheists defending American Atheists are lettig their emotions cloud their judgement here. Is mormonism irrational? Yes. Does mormonism have a screwed up history when it comes to civil rights? Of coursw. But just because what the American Athesists are saying is correct doesn't mean that what they are doing makes political sense. If the goal is to mock religion than what they are doing here makes sense, but if it is to promote atheism, rationaloccoma thought, and/or secular humanism I dont see how this helps. I am definitely not an accommodationist, but it often seems like new atheists cant decide whether they are more interested in bashing religion than they are interested in promoting atheism and science.

I am one of those who think it is specifically religion that is in need of criticism and not so much the notion of gods. Whatever one might think of the possibility that there might be a level of agency beyond that which we can comprehend currently, it is nevertheless religion that emerges from the pretension that one can know the nature of such a hypothetical agency, and what this agency thinks, and wants, and has done, and will do. It is religion that ultimately defines the god, not the other way around. People seem intent on wanting their damned gods (i.e. want to assume agency exists in the universe). That being the case, I tend to focus on arguing that they cannot know anything about the nature of this hypothetical god/agency, nor have a personal relationship with him/it/her (i.e. no religion). Any personal belief to the contrary is a delusion.

That being said, I agree with OP in this instance. Should not pick on one religion. If the organization wants to address specific tenets of religion rather than the nonsense of religiosity in general, they are going to need a bigger truck.

You make a point. But one can see the sign, noting it's source, as "religion is dogma; discriminatory dogma." Here's Romney's commitments.

We can elegantly derive, scientifically,the existence of widespread false belief, but these examples can open people's minds to the arguments. Europe isn't more progressive because they are better scientists. At some painful historical point, many decided to look.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.